Question follow-through · 12039
Vetting Review
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether the Vetting Review into the National Security Vetting system and the Peter Mandelson case will consider how financial interests, business appointments, advisory roles, close personal relationships and th
About this written question
A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.
- Answering body
- Cabinet Office
- Tabled
- 23 Jun 2026
- Target answer date
- 30 Jun 2026
- Answer
- 3 Jul 2026 · 10 calendar days after tabling
Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.
Votes on this topic
- Draft Code of Practice on Electronic and Workplace Ballots for Statutory Trade Union Ballots · 15 Jul 2026
- Draft Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026 · 15 Jul 2026
- Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill Committee: New Clause 5 · 1 Jul 2026
These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.
Recorded timeline
23 Jun 2026
Question tabled
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether the Vetting Review into the National Security Vetting system and the Peter Mandelson case will consider how financial interests, business appointments, advisory roles, close personal relationships and th
30 Jun 2026
Target answer date
Date supplied by the official written-questions record.
3 Jul 2026
Answer published
The Terms of Reference for the review into lessons for the National Security Vetting system from the Peter Mandelson case are publicly available. Sir Adrian Fulford has been appointed to lead the review, and it is for Sir Adrian to determine the informati...
Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.
Later records
Possible follow-up questions
Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.
No later same-department questions indexed.
This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.